So in your mind, would the ideal lojban (if it could be redesigned from the ground up) not have a need for zi'o at all?
On Feb 18, 2011 4:27 PM, "Jorge Llambías" <
jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > {x1 broda fi x2} should be able to be interpreted as {x1 broda [zi'o |
>>> > zo'e
>>> > | zu'i] x3} pe'icai
>>>
>>> Due to the bloated nature of many gismu definitions, that is probably
>>> inevitable.
>>
>> You say that like it's some dreadful thing.
>
> It is, to some extent. Dreadfully clumsy, at least.
>
>> If there are bridi that could
>> use {zi'o} (and I assume that there are because otherwise what's the point
>> of having a zi'o word at all if you're never really being correct by using
>> it), then there are going to be times when you're being lazy or in a hurry
>> and want to leave it up to context. I don't understand what's so
>> undesirable about that.
>
> It's undesirable that there are gismu that need it. That indicates to
> me that their definition was not very well thought out.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>